Home » General Discussions » Heated Discussions and Debates » Litmus test for liberals
|
|
|
|
| Litmus test for liberals [message #108508] |
Tue, 17 August 2004 11:47   |
 |
ViperFUD
Messages: 69
Registered: April 2003
Karma: 0
|
Recruit |
|
|
| Nodbugger |
Shut the fuck up.
Why do you all you fuckers keep trying to make America the bad guy!
Are you really that fucking stupid? Saddam is the bad guy. Saddam is the one doing all the horrible shit. Stop protesting the US and go fucking protest Saddam. All you peace loving fuckers are a bunch of hypocrites. We did not do a single thing wrong. Saddam was the asshole killing people. We went there to stop that. If your stupid fucking head cannot agree with than sit down and shut the fuck up because we simply do not want to hear your stupid fucking logic. We do not fucking care.
I also don't fucking care how childish I may sound. I don't give a fuck. I don't care, if you guys are going to stay fucking retarded do it in Canada or where ever the fuck you are from.
|
| SEAL |
SHUT TEH FUK UP1!!! OMG Y DO U AL U FUKERS KEP TRYNG 2 MAEK M3RICA TEH BAD GUY1!1!!111 R U RILLY TAHT FUKNG STUPID?!?!???! SADM IS DA BAD GUY1111111! OMG SADM IS TEH ON3 DONG AL DA HORIBLE SHIT!1111!! OMG S2P PROTESTNG TEH US AND GO FUKNG PROT3ST SADM!!!!! OMG LOL AL U P3AEC LOVNG FUK3RS R A BUNCH OF HYPOCRIETS11!!! WTF W3 DID NOT DO A SNGLE THNG WRONG111!11 SADM WAS DA ASHOL3 KILNG PEOPLA11!!11 OMG LOL WA WANT THEYRE 2 S2P TAHT1!!!! WTF IF UR STUPID FUKNG HEAD CANOT AGRE WIT THAN SIT DOWN AND SHUT TEH FUK UP B/C W3 SIMPLY DO NOT WANT 2 HAAR UR STUPID FUKNG LOGIC11!!!1! OMG WA DO NOT FUKNG CAER!1!1
I ALSO DONT FUKNG R HOW CHILDISH I MAY SOUND11!1!111 OMG WTF LOL I DONT GIEV A FUK11!1 OMG WTF I DONT CAER IF U GUYS R GONG 2 STAY FUKNG R3TARDED DO IT IN CANADA OR WHERE EV3R TEH FUK U R FROM!1!111! OMG WTF LOL
|
I don't know, seal; I think nodbugger's post looked stupider. You're gonna hafta try harder to be as dumb as him. Try drinking some draino while eating paint chips.
And nodbugger ... as a Republican myself, I just have one simple request for you ...
SHUT THE FUCK UP.
You make the rest of us look like morons, and I don't appreciate that.
And shepherds we shall be,
For thee, my Lord, for thee.
Power hath descended forth from thy hand;
That our feet may swiftly carry out thy command.
And we shall flow a river forth to thee,
And teeming with souls shall it ever be.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Litmus test for liberals [message #108514] |
Tue, 17 August 2004 12:20 |
 |
Nodbugger
Messages: 976
Registered: February 2003
Karma: 0
|
Colonel |
|
|
| Gizbotvas |
| Quote: |
Shut the fuck up.
Why do you all you fuckers keep trying to make America the bad guy!
|
Sometimes we are the bad guy. Saddam Hussein was completely UNconnected to the 9/11 attacks. Al Queada attacked the US, a group formed in large part by the United States to combat Communists like me.
The Bush Administration scared the American Public, using constant references to 9/11, Al Queada, and terrorists, to push a long-held agenda to invade Iraq against all international law and common sense.
You can pretend America is correct all the time if you want to, but 3 Billion Muslims may disagree with you, and if you weren't so young and uninformed you would be forced to agree that some critical self-examination and policy review is warranted.
Remember that it was Legal to hang a Black man for touching a White woman not even sixty years ago here. We are not always right, we are not always the good guys, the important thing is to learn from our mistakes and get rid of GW Bush before he causes any more damage.
|
No we are almost never the bad guy as you put it. We have our reasons for doing everything we do.
Bush, nor has anyone ever connected Saddam to the 9/11 attacks. No one ever said that. That is just another lie. They said Saddam had connections with Al-Qaueda. Which has been proven to be true. Al-Queda was not formed to combat terrorists. Just because the people in Afghanistan 40 years ago were trained to fight communists does not in any way make them the same guys in Al-Queda. that is like saying the current German government is all Nazis. Saddam was a terrorist. He may not have been a terrorist who attacked us but he was still a terrorists. And we are fighting the war on Terror. Not just certain kinds of it, ALL of it and Saddam certainly fits into the category. 3 Billions Muslims will not disagree with me. Maybe a few million Canadians but not 3 billion Muslims. How is invading Iraq against common sense? Terrorists, bad guys who kill civilians on purpose. Saddam, bad guy who kills civilians on purpose.
It was never legal to hang a black man 60 years ago. It was just never reported. Because it happened in the South where 99% of people belonged to the KKK. If it happened in the North they would have gotten in a lot of trouble. BTW, many cases did go to trial (proving these acts were illegal) but because of the area the people who committed the acts were found not guilty.
And GW Bush has caused No Mistakes. And I am not following blindly as you are probably going to say. I have made up my mind and have come to reasonable conclusion. You how ever have not reasonable explanation for any of your conclusions. they are just extremists views that only a dumb fucker would choose.
BTW, Communism fucking sucks, It will never work unless you are the only person in the communist society.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Litmus test for liberals [message #108519] |
Tue, 17 August 2004 12:58 |
 |
Gizbotvas
Messages: 172
Registered: February 2003
Location: Madison, WI
Karma: 0
|
Recruit |
|
|
| Nodbugger |
And GW Bush has caused No Mistakes.
...they are just extremists views that only a dumb fucker would choose.
|
Do you think it is reasonable, or extreme to say that GW Bush has made zero mistakes since taking office? When you say silly things like that, how do you think other people will view your opinions?
You are entitled to your own opinion, just make sure that it is your opinion, not one dictated to you by the latest calculated Conservative talking point.
"Everyone relax...Gizbotvas is here"
Pits moderator
n00bserver moderator
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Litmus test for liberals [message #108522] |
Tue, 17 August 2004 13:04 |
|
Gizbotvas
Messages: 172
Registered: February 2003
Location: Madison, WI
Karma: 0
|
Recruit |
|
|
A few questions for the Bush fans here;
~do you think we are safer now than before the war in Iraq?
~do you think there are FEWER terrorists now that we occupy Iraq?
~do you think that occupying Iraq will slow/stop Al Queada?
~why do YOU think we went to war, I think it was to find weapons of mass destruction, but the reasons change so often, why do YOU think we went to war in Iraq?
"Everyone relax...Gizbotvas is here"
Pits moderator
n00bserver moderator
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Litmus test for liberals [message #108524] |
Tue, 17 August 2004 13:10 |
 |
warranto
Messages: 2584
Registered: February 2003
Location: Alberta, Canada
Karma: 0
|
General (2 Stars) |
|
|
| Nodbugger |
| warranto |
| Nodbugger |
Shut the fuck up.
Why do you all you fuckers keep trying to make America the bad guy!
Are you really that fucking stupid? Saddam is the bad guy. Saddam is the one doing all the horrible shit. Stop protesting the US and go fucking protest Saddam. All you peace loving fuckers are a bunch of hypocrites. We did not do a single thing wrong. Saddam was the asshole killing people. We went there to stop that. If your stupid fucking head cannot agree with than sit down and shut the fuck up because we simply do not want to hear your stupid fucking logic. We do not fucking care.
I also don't fucking care how childish I may sound. I don't give a fuck. I don't care, if you guys are going to stay fucking retarded do it in Canada or where ever the fuck you are from.
|
Who said Saddam wasn't bad? NO ONE. WHO CARES if it is Saddam who is nuking the world, it DOES NOT give a member state the right to invade another member state without the approval of the United Nations. I could care less how noble it is, whether if in the end it is forgiven, or the leader of the country of the target invasion is the Devil himself, it does NOT make it any more legal.
NO ONE is disagreeing with you that saddam had to be stopped. IT DOESN'T MAKE IT ANY LESS ILLEGAL TO INVADE ANOTHER MEMBER STATE WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE UNITED NATIONS.
|
SO THEN WHY THE FUCK ARE YOU SO AGAINST GETTING RID OF HIM? No anti-war person has ever answered this question. They always give some bullshit answer about oil or the war being Illegal. Those are all shit for brains answer that are totally false. And only a dumb fuck with even bring those up.
The war was simply not illegal. And no matter how many UN resolutions or charters you pull up will make it illegal. The UN may have a few little pieces of paper with some writing on it, but when it comes to real world issues where pillows and candy don't count we couldn't give a fuck what the UN has written down. How many wars have there been without UN approval? How many people have been killed in genocides under UN Watch? WAY too many. The UN is obsolete. And we do not need to listen to them. We do not need a permission slip to defend the United States.
|
Nodbugger, reality check:
MORALLY RIGHT DOES NOT AUTOMATICALLY EQUAL LEGALLY RIGHT. COMMON SENSE DOES NOT AUTOMATICALLY EQUAL LEGALLY RUGHT.
THE UNITED STATES WAS NOT AUTHORIZED TO ATTACK IRAQ, THEREFORE THE ATTACK WAS ILLEGAL AS IRAQ IS A UNITED NATIONS MEMBER STATE.
I am in NO way against getting rid of Saddam, I never said it, I never implied it.
IT DOES NOT MATTER HOW MANY WARS TOOK PLACE WITHOUT UN AUTHORIZATION, THEY WERE JUST AS ILLEGAL AS THIS.
THE UNITED STATES WAS NOT DEFENDING ITSELF AS IT WAS NEVER ATTACKED BY IRAQ. THE UNFOUNDED ALLIGATIONS OF A POTENTIAL FOR AN ATTACK DOES NOT EQUAL AN ATTACK.
If you don't like the UN, tell the American Government to pay off the member ship fees that they have NEVER bothered to pay, and LEAVE it. Until then, I could care less of it's "obsolete". I thas never been officially disbanded, therefore EVERY MEMBER STATE MUST FOLLOW THE RULES THE UN SETS FORTH.
|
|
|
|
| Litmus test for liberals [message #108527] |
Tue, 17 August 2004 13:30 |
 |
SuperFlyingEngi
Messages: 1756
Registered: November 2003
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
Well, I don't know about the rest of you, but I personally don't care what Nodbugger says any more.
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." -- Theodore Roosevelt (1918)
"The danger to political dissent is acute where the Government attempts to act under so vague a concept as the power to protect "domestic security." Given the difficulty of defining the domestic security interest, the danger of abuse in acting to protect that interest becomes apparent. --U.S. Supreme Court decision (407 U.S. 297 (1972)
The Liberal Media At Work
An objective look at media partisanship
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Litmus test for liberals [message #108542] |
Tue, 17 August 2004 14:53 |
 |
NukeIt15
Messages: 987
Registered: February 2003
Location: Out to lunch
Karma: 0
|
Colonel |
|
|
| Javaxcx |
Not quite. You're right about the lack thereof to govern other nations, because nations are ASKED (or warned) not told to comply with resolutions. You're also right about being free to make your own choices. However, should those choices be in violation of the law agreed to by the Member States in 1945 and onward, then at the end of the day, the act was still illegal. Illegal, of course, in terms of the international law that Member AGREED to. In 1945, quite a few people said "yeah, we'll play by these rules". Those rules are the United Nations Charter.
All of these rules can be found here: http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/
I trust you to have more sense then Nodbugger and read them before commenting on them.
As for the United States government superceding the United Nations. Heh. I can't agree with that. Sure, you've got the biggest guns, but you've locked the ball'n'chain around yourselves when you signed that 'contract'. The fact of the matter is, Resolution 1441 was violated by both Iraq and the United States (and in essence, all nations in the Coalition of the Willing). If the U.S. is going to call Iraq's actions against resolutions illegal, then do the same thing, but claim it not to be illegal. Well, there is a problem there.
So I'm going to ask you:
Resolution 1441 says this: "Reaffirming the commitment of all Member States to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Iraq, Kuwait, and the neighbouring States,"
That statement runs back all the way to Resolution 686 in 1990 in terms of Iraq.
Was this commitment (you can find it in the Charter in article 2 I believe) at the end of the day upheld and implimented by the United States and the CoW as per their authority of Resolution 678? If not, then this war is illegal. If so, prove it.
You're absolutely right. I was aghast when I read that the Security Council didn't condemn this attack dispite its obvious violation of 1441 and previous resolutions. It's suspicious.
|
Bypassing all of the rediculous flaming...
Yes, there are rules nations are expected to follow as members of the UN. However, I think you'll find that there aren't any nations that are willing to give up authority for any decision to anyone other than their own government. Not the US, not France, nor Russia, Great Britain, China, Germany, etc. The UN is NOT a government. Any time a nation decides that the UN is not acting in their best interests, you can be damned sure they can and will look after themselves with or without support. As far as the US government is concerned, this country's interests come BEFORE those of the UN. The US constitution and the laws supporting it supercede any resolution the UN puts forth. I am far beyond certain that if you looked deep enough, you would find that your own country has the same policy.
That is the reason why the US became a member of the UN, and not the League of Nations before it- the League had the authority to tell its members whether or not they could go to war, the UN can not do that.
There is a very interesting controversy surrounding the International Court that goes along the same lines. That is not something for this thread, as it has gone off topic enough already, but I think you would find it a juicy hot topic- if you don't know about it already.
| Quote: |
You're absolutely right. I was aghast when I read that the Security Council didn't condemn this attack dispite its obvious violation of 1441 and previous resolutions. It's suspicious.
|
Not exactly what I was referring to. I was talking about the illegal sale of weapons to Iraq between 1991 and 2003. It's not too shocking to find out that the countries profiting from deals with Saddam were the very same ones that opposed this war.
Please understand that I don't like how the US governemnt basically gave the UN the cold shoulder, but also understand that I am-and always will be- loyal to my own country before the UN. There probably were better ways to go about getting rid of Saddam, but it is clear(to me, at least) that the UN was never going to do a damn thing about him- especially since several members of the security council(and it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out which ones) would have profitied from Saddam staying in power.
| Gizbotvas |
~do you think we are safer now than before the war in Iraq?
~do you think there are FEWER terrorists now that we occupy Iraq?
~do you think that occupying Iraq will slow/stop Al Queada?
~why do YOU think we went to war, I think it was to find weapons of mass destruction, but the reasons change so often, why do YOU think we went to war in Iraq?
|
1. Yes. Absolutely. Why is a different issue, and it would have been the same no matter which country was invaded.
2. No. In fact, I think their numbers will only increase. However, their target priorities have changed.
3. Stop? No. But it has given some of their supporters a change of heart...several state sponsors of terror have...well, stopped sponsoring.
4. Several reasons. If you think WMD's or any moral cause was the only reason, you are sadly misinformed. Certainly, both were issues, but not the main ones- just the ones that got the most attention. The war was was intended to send a message, a big fat boldface warning to anyone who would threaten the US(Bad guys beware- you could be next!). It also serves as a distraction- as long as terrorists are fighting our all-volunteer military overseas, they aren't attacking civilian targets inside the US.
"Arms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. Horrid mischief would ensue were (the law-abiding) deprived of the use of them." - Thomas Paine
Remember, kids: illiteracy is cool. If you took the time to read this, you are clearly a loser who will never get laid. You've been warned.
|
|
|
|
| Litmus test for liberals [message #108547] |
Tue, 17 August 2004 15:29 |
|
warranto
Messages: 2584
Registered: February 2003
Location: Alberta, Canada
Karma: 0
|
General (2 Stars) |
|
|
| Nodbugger |
How am I ignorant.
If the UN cannot enforce it laws there is no point to it, if they cannot stop the truly evil people in the world why should we listen to them on how we do things? They say it needs to be done yet they do nothing about it. We stood up and did something about. We don't care what the UN says anymore. It may be OK for you dumb asses to be UN pussies but I don't want to be.
And Putin warned of an attack by Iraq. Besides, that is stupid logic that we cannot defend against a possible attack. If you knew pearl harbor was going to happen would you say we couldn't attack Japan until they attack us? HELL NO! nobody is that fucking stupid to wait until they get hit to strike. It is not against US law to strike first in a fight. If you feel threatened and you believe you can stop a fight before one happens you have the right to prevent bodily harm to yourself.
|
If the UN cannot enforce it is laws.. wait, your saying there are laws that prevented America from attacking? Well, thank you for proving my point that it was illegal!
Just because someone fails to uphold the law does not mean it's legal to break the law.
Sure, you have the right to defend yourself from danger, however there was no threat of danger. You yourself said there was no real proof for or against the existance of WMD's, so that excuse is not valid as "self defence". In order for it to be construed self-defence, one thing must be present. A real and imminant danger. So using this, please tell me the real and imminant danger that Iraq posed to America. Remember, you yourself said there is no proof for or against the existance of WMD's, don't rely on that for a reason.
|
|
|
|
| Litmus test for liberals [message #108554] |
Tue, 17 August 2004 15:56 |
|
Nodbugger
Messages: 976
Registered: February 2003
Karma: 0
|
Colonel |
|
|
| warranto |
| Nodbugger |
How am I ignorant.
If the UN cannot enforce it laws there is no point to it, if they cannot stop the truly evil people in the world why should we listen to them on how we do things? They say it needs to be done yet they do nothing about it. We stood up and did something about. We don't care what the UN says anymore. It may be OK for you dumb asses to be UN pussies but I don't want to be.
And Putin warned of an attack by Iraq. Besides, that is stupid logic that we cannot defend against a possible attack. If you knew pearl harbor was going to happen would you say we couldn't attack Japan until they attack us? HELL NO! nobody is that fucking stupid to wait until they get hit to strike. It is not against US law to strike first in a fight. If you feel threatened and you believe you can stop a fight before one happens you have the right to prevent bodily harm to yourself.
|
If the UN cannot enforce it is laws.. wait, your saying there are laws that prevented America from attacking? Well, thank you for proving my point that it was illegal!
Just because someone fails to uphold the law does not mean it's legal to break the law.
Sure, you have the right to defend yourself from danger, however there was no threat of danger. You yourself said there was no real proof for or against the existance of WMD's, so that excuse is not valid as "self defence". In order for it to be construed self-defence, one thing must be present. A real and imminant danger. So using this, please tell me the real and imminant danger that Iraq posed to America. Remember, you yourself said there is no proof for or against the existance of WMD's, don't rely on that for a reason.
|
Japan did not need wmd to attack us. To assume the only why to attack is is wmd is just stupid.
Do you people really just have a one track mind?
And no ,it was not illegal.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Litmus test for liberals [message #108573] |
Tue, 17 August 2004 17:22 |
|
warranto
Messages: 2584
Registered: February 2003
Location: Alberta, Canada
Karma: 0
|
General (2 Stars) |
|
|
You posted a link with Putins statement? I must have missed it... perhaps you could quote the post again?
Did I glance over your post? nope.. this is what it said.
| Quote: |
Japan did not need wmd to attack us. To assume the only why to attack is is wmd is just stupid.
|
I never stated anything similar to this, as I mentioned in my previous post.
***
Exactly, you said that in order for the attack to be done in self defence, America had to be in real and imminant danger (so absolute proof an attack will take place, not an assumtion that some time in the future something may happen).
You had no proof of WMD's as I said, regardless of if they existed or not, regardless of if they could have been hid or not, there was no proof. Therefor using it as a delf-defence clause does not work. What did I say about using this as a defence now? Oh yes, it's pointless, but you decided to use it anyways.
Did You ever mention that "Japan did not need wmd to attack us". Never, at least until you pulled it out of thin air trying to destroy my credibility. So not knowing what you yourself writes is pretty bad in itself.
| Quote: |
If you knew pearl harbor was going to happen would you say we couldn't attack Japan until they attack us? HELL NO! nobody is that fucking stupid to wait until they get hit to strike.
|
Any mention of WMD's? nope
so I said;
| Quote: |
Sure, you have the right to defend yourself from danger, however there was no threat of danger. You yourself said there was no real proof for or against the existance of WMD's, so that excuse is not valid as "self defence".
|
Any reference to Japan having WMD's there? Nope, once again, no mention of that.
Then you respond;
| Quote: |
Japan did not need wmd to attack us. To assume the only why to attack is is wmd is just stupid.
|
Making up something about me saying Japan needed WMD's to attack, when no sort of implication was there.
|
|
|
|
| Litmus test for liberals [message #108574] |
Tue, 17 August 2004 17:33 |
|
Nodbugger
Messages: 976
Registered: February 2003
Karma: 0
|
Colonel |
|
|
| warranto |
You posted a link with Putins statement? I must have missed it... perhaps you could quote the post again?
Did I glance over your post? nope.. this is what it said.
| Quote: |
Japan did not need wmd to attack us. To assume the only why to attack is is wmd is just stupid.
|
I never stated anything similar to this, as I mentioned in my previous post.
***
Exactly, you said that in order for the attack to be done in self defence, America had to be in real and imminant danger (so absolute proof an attack will take place, not an assumtion that some time in the future something may happen).
You had no proof of WMD's as I said, regardless of if they existed or not, regardless of if they could have been hid or not, there was no proof. Therefor using it as a delf-defence clause does not work. What did I say about using this as a defence now? Oh yes, it's pointless, but you decided to use it anyways.
Did You ever mention that "Japan did not need wmd to attack us". Never, at least until you pulled it out of thin air trying to destroy my credibility. So not knowing what you yourself writes is pretty bad in itself.
| Quote: |
If you knew pearl harbor was going to happen would you say we couldn't attack Japan until they attack us? HELL NO! nobody is that fucking stupid to wait until they get hit to strike.
|
Any mention of WMD's? nope
so I said;
| Quote: |
Sure, you have the right to defend yourself from danger, however there was no threat of danger. You yourself said there was no real proof for or against the existance of WMD's, so that excuse is not valid as "self defence".
|
Any reference to Japan having WMD's there? Nope, once again, no mention of that.
Then you respond;
| Quote: |
Japan did not need wmd to attack us. To assume the only why to attack is is wmd is just stupid.
|
Making up something about me saying Japan needed WMD's to attack, when no sort of implication was there.
|
I cannot believe you are this stupid.
You said I cannot use the self defense reason because I cannot use wmd as something to defend against.
I simply pointed out Iraq did not need wmd to attack us. I gave an example. Which was Japan. Your lack of brains did not allow you to figure that out.
BTW, I'm not going to attempt to explain this to you again.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Litmus test for liberals [message #108596] |
Tue, 17 August 2004 19:51 |
 |
Hydra
Messages: 827
Registered: September 2003
Location: Atlanta, GA
Karma: 0
|
Colonel |
|
|
| warranto |
WHO CARES if it is Saddam who is nuking the world, it DOES NOT give a member state the right to invade another member state without the approval of the United Nations.
|
Four words: Oil-for-Food scandal
You're going to trust the UN?
I think it's about time that corrupt, spineless organization was disbanded. If two countries have a dispute, let them work it out. For example, why should Japan or Indonesia have a say in Israel's affairs? It's not going to affect them in any way if Israel builds a security barrier, it's none of their business, so why should they be able to tell Israel "We condemn you for building that wall!" if Israel didn't even ask their opinion?
The United Nations is not a world government even though that's what it's trying to be.
Walter Keith Koester: September 22, 1962 - March 15, 2005
God be with you, Uncle Wally.
 (<---New(ish) Prayer Group Forums)
 (<---Archived Prayer Group Forums)
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Sat Nov 02 19:51:22 MST 2024
Total time taken to generate the page: 0.02365 seconds
|
Search
Help
Members
Register
Login
Home
